The Sun. — London, England, 1864-04-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OP LORDS—Last Evening, The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at the usual hour. THE BOMBARDMENT OF SONDERBORG. The Earl of MALMESBURY asked the noble earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he had yet received any reliable information in refereace to the report that Sonderborg was bombarded without previous notioe having been given, in accordance with the ordinary uses in civil warfare. He thought that if it was true it was the duty of her Majesty's Govrrnment to state most distinctly its opi nion of the doings of the Prussian army. Earl RUSSELL said he had not received any definite information as yet. He expected that the reply to any inquiries would be that her Majesty's Government had no right to inquire into the conduct of a belligerent. LAND SECURITIES COMPANY BILL. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH moved the second reading of this bill, the object of which was the formation of a financial society for lending money, taking land as a security for the loans made. A long discussion arose, in which Lord Redesdale, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Craaworth took part ; the bill was read a second time and referred to a select committee. Garibaldi and the Emperor of the French, The Earl of CLARENDON replied to the state ments published in some of the morning papers, to the effect that General Garibaldi had been induced to curtail his visit to England on account of the representations that had been made to the English Government by the French Government. The noble earl then read the state ment in question, and said that if there was the slightest foundation for the statement, her Majesty's Government would well deserve the strictures contained in the article. He could assure their lordships that, neither directly nor indirectly, had any representation been made to that effect by the Emperor Napoleon, or any member of his Govern meat, nor was any allusion made by him (Earl of Clarendon) with respect to the arrival of Gen. Garibald in this country, or to the probable time of his departure. He would not say the subject had not been alluded to. He (the Earl of Clarendon) had alluded to it probably in describing the en-. trance of General Garibaldi iato London, and more than likely he had mentioned the enthusiasm with which he was received, and that the ground of that enthusiasm was that he had risen in the estima tion of the people because of the great services he had rendered his country, and because he was a brave and honest man. (Hear, hear.) He was not betraying any confidence, he was sure, when he said the Emperor fully understood and certainly believed how such qualities as those possessed by General Garibaldi went to the Eng lish heart. No question or inquiry was ever made to him (the Earl of Clarendon) upon the subject. He had not heard the rumour of his leaving England until he had seen it in the morning papers, and while he was addressing their lord ships he would simply allude to another matter, in which it was stated in the same newspaper, and which had been put forward elsewhere. No concessions had either been made or asked of the French Government or of the English Government by each other. The same desire existed on the part of her Majesty's Government upon the all impor tant question that there should be a cordial understanding as far as practicable between the two Governments. (Hear, hear.) PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lancaster Local Board of Health and the Metropoli tan Meat and Poultry Markets Bills was read a second time. The London Necropolis and National Mausoleum, the North Kentt Water, Helsone and Penrhyn Junction Rail way,Tunbridge Wells Gas, Swansea Vale Railway, Ipswich Gas, and Caine Railway Bills were read a third time and passed. The Landed Securities Company Bill was read a second time. Oa the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Bill amending the Improvement of Land Act was read a second time. Their Lordships then adjourned shortly before seven. HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening, The SPEAKEIC took the chair at four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. Sir T. BATESON took the oaths and his seat on his elec. Lion for Devizes. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Bucklechurch Roads Bill and the South Stafford shire Water Bill were read a third time and passed. TREATY BETWEEN CAMBODIA AND FRANCE. In reply to Viscount ENFIELD, Mr. LAYARD said that he had not seen the treaty in question, but he understood that it contained provisions in favour of France. The Government of this country had been communicated with, and expressed their desire that all countries treating with Cambodia should have the same pi ivile:;es, PENSION TO THE KING OF GREECE. Mr. AYPTON gave notice that on Friday fortnight, on P.e motion for going into committee of supply, he would move that the granting of a pension of 4,000 a year to the King of Greece by the Government, without the sanction of Parliament, was a violation of the privileges of this house. THE QUESTION OF BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Colonel FRENCH drew attention to the debate on the question of privilege, and read the acts 19 and 20, cap. 116, which stated that the Government could appoint only a member of the Privy Council to be a member of the Coun cil of Education. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that the diffi culty alluded to by the hon. and gallant member could 'easily be surmounted, as the Queen had the power of appointing any person a member of the Privy Council, GARLBALDL Mr. D. GRIFFITH said he wished to afford Govern ment an opportunity of making an explanation in reference to a report that prevailed to the effect that the interruption of the visit of General Garibaldi to this country had been caused by the suggestions of the Government, dictated from another quarter. Lord PALMERSTON said he had heard of the report which had suggested the observations of the hon. mem ber, and he understood that reports to the same effect pre vailed in different parts of the metropolis. The report set forth that the curtailment of the General's visit was really suggested by the Government of this country, dictated, as the hon. member implied, by the Emperor of the French. That report had done great injustice, both to the Government and the Emperor of the French. He could only say that any Government of this country would receive such applications from a foreign Power, in reference to a domestic event, with a civil but firm refusal. With regard to the Emperor of the French, from the information he had received from Lord Clarendon, so far from the reception given to General Garibaldi by this country having given him umbrage, he regarded it as highly honourable to the people of this country. Every one must know that the General received a severe wound in August, 1862, from the effects of which he had not yet recovered. It was also well known that the General had led a life of exposure and hard ship, and therefore it was not surprising that he should be in a delicate state of health. Besides, his life since he came to this country had been different to what he had recently been accustomed to. In the island of Caprera ho rose and went to bed early, but hero he had to receive deputations and visits, to dine at half. peat 8 o'clock, and to go to bed at 12 o'clock. (Laughter.) He expressed a hope that the general's health would be improved by re tiring to his former mode of living. DENMARK. Mr OSBORNE drew the attention of the house to the effect of our foreign policy in Denmark and the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein; and moved that it was both unjust and inexpedient to insist on the provisions of the Treaty of London, 1852, so far as they related to the order of succession in the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, as a basis for the settlement of the Dana-German dispute ; and, address for copy of all answers returned by the Germanic Confederation and the Powers who have been invited to attend the approaching Confe rence. The hon. member said—Whatever may be the faults or shortcomings of the House of Commons, it can hardly he attributed to us that we are of an impatient or inquisitive tarn of mind. For although professing the greatest interest in their sanguinary contest now going on in the north of Europe, and in spite of five bulky volumes having been pub lished, containing upwards of 1,215 despatches, up to the present moment no inquiry has bees made into those bulky volumes--no discussion has yet taken place upon the policy of her Majesty's Ministers. Whatever else may be attri buted tome, I de not thick 1 am acting in a premature manner in bringing the subject under the consideration of Parliament. I n doing so I shall endeavour to avoid the genealogical, and all the other mystifications by which it has been endeavou red to sink the question of Schleswig- Holstein. I know it has been laid down, upon the highest authority, that this question is above the comprehension of . th e ordinary pa intellect—(laughter)—that, like the mysteries of Eleums, none but the favoured hierophants of the Cabinet can unravel its mysteries and explain its origin. Even upon a recent occasion, one o f t h e most s kilf u l members of the Cabinet, the right hon, membe r for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) declared to his constituent s hi s u tt er in ability to comprehen d the points at issue b e t ween D enmar k and the duchies, and h is resolution to leave the matter to be elucidated by the G e rman professor s . (A laugh.) This, too, at a time when the Cabinet of which the light hon. gentleman is a member were, consulting upon th e expe diency of going to war with Crerm , uay. Lot me hope that the House of Commons will not follow the fatal example of my right hon. friend ; for although this subject has been mystified by mediaeval research, and obscured b y profes sorial expl ana ti ons , it is simple in its origin and easy of comprehension. Had not diplomacy rushed in with its ex• pedients the question would long ap have settled itself. But when diplomacy came and manufactured a succession, and so upset the rights of the people, the question became in extricably confused. To what is all this bloodshed and con tusion in the north of Europe to be attributed ? I am one of hat small and faithful band who attribute all this confu sion to the treaty of London in 1852, which was concocted ey the noble lord the present First Minister of the Crown, and eniorsed by another noble lord, whom I do not blame, inasmuch as he had recently accepted the seals of the Fo reign Office, and could not be supposed to be acquainted with all the intricacies of this question. That ti aty was made by one Government, and signed by Lord M iln esbury, the Foreign Secretary of another, The prov ens of that treaty trampled on the rights of an ancie , le, and also on the rights of an hereditary duke, and tie pretext of supporting the integrity of Denmark and maintaining the balance of power in Europe, for which this country has paid so much and profited so little. This treaty has settled no point, it has satisfied no party; while Germany denies the legality of the treaty, and Denmark evades all the stipula tions of the treaty of 1852. England is the only power which, on a strict examination of those blue books, will be found pertinaciously adhering to, and ready to go to war for, the maintenance of that treaty by which the people of the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein are compelled to accept the supremacy of the Danish monarchy, which had no heart or feeling for these duchies. (Hear, hear.) I have no hesi tion in saying that, in the making of that treaty, the noble lord unfortunately became a tool in the hands of Russia to advance the ambitious designs of the Emperor of that coun try. So far back as the year 1448, Christian I. of Oldenburg succeeded to the crown of Denmark, and in 1460 he was elected to the sovereignty of the two duchies of Schleewig- Holstein, and there was an old charter that the two duchies should remain for ever undivided. However much people may dispute the title, I think those who study the question will agree that the relations between Denmark and the duchies were of a purely dynastic and personal kind, the same as the relations between this country and Hanover. It is neces sary to remember that the local Governments of Holstein and Schleswig were entirely apart from Denmark; and since 1605 the succession to the crown of Denmark was by females, but in the duchies the succession was strictly restricted to males. It is not necessary for my subject to go further than that. In the year 1846 Christian VIII., being afraid of the extinction of his dynasty, issued his famous letters patent, and those letters patent were the cause of all the con fusion that has arisen. He recognised explicitly the union between Holstein and Schleswig, but in 1848 a democratic revolution broke out in Copenhagen, and a new King, Frederick VII., threw himself into the arms of the Eider Danish party, whose object was to let Holstein go, but to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark. In 1818 the Prus sians, after a conflict with the Danes, established a peace with them; but the duchies still holding out, were routed by the Danes at the battle of Eisted, on the 25th of July, 1850, and Austria and Prussia then stepping in, in (Tit. of their promises, proposed to the duchies an ignominious peace. The Confederation, in the first place, took the fatal step, in the eyes of the inhabitants of Schleswig-Holstein, and gave up the political union of the duchies, which had been recognised for ages, and had been guaranteed as re cently as 1846 by Christian VIII. Denmark gave up the incorporation, and gave solemn pledges that she would never again endeavour to incorporate Schleswig with Den mark. She also guaranteed separate legislation to the internal affairs of Schleswig and Holstein. These terms never were submitted to :lee States of Schleswig and Holstein. The hon. gentleman having thus given a brief outline of tee political history of the States, turned attention to correspondence on the table of the house. The most material information, said the hon. gentleman, is that conveyed in a note from the Chevalier vole Bunsen, in May, 1848, in which he shadowed out a plan for separating north and south Schleswig, giving the north to Denmark and the south to Holstein. The noble lord, then Foreign Secretary, now First Minister, amplified the suggestions of Chevalier von Bunsen, and made a pro posal that a line should be drawn across Schleswig, and gave the northern part to Denmark and the south to Hol stein. That was the proposal of the noble lord, and I find it impossible to reconcile that conduct with his conduct in 1864. After some further interference, on March 20, 1851, a great stir had been made on the ground that we were in terfering in the question of the duchies. A member got up and asked the noble lord whether there had been any nego tations on that question. Let the house bear in mind that in 1850 he had suggested this scheme, and had proposed suc cessors to the crown of Denmark, and then hear the answer to that question. The noble lord stated that a good deal had passed in regard to these points ; and her Majesty's Government had studiously and systematically held them selves aloof from taking any share in these negotiations. Her Majesty's Government had confined themselves strictly to negotiations for bringing about peace between Schleswig and the Germanic Confederation. Her Majesty's Govern ment were still interesting themselves for the same object. The hon. gentleman then declared that the treaty of 1852 really originated at Warsaw, and was promoted by the Em peror of Russia, between whom and the succession to the duchies and the crown of Danmark there were at the pre sent time only three lives. The hon. member pointed out further that Earl Granville, seeing the injustice with which this question was treated in 1852, wrote to Sir H. Wynn, the Ambassador at Copenhagen, representing that the Germanic Confederation were necessary parties to the question before it was finally settled ; bat who, on receiv ing a reply from Sir H. Wynn that his preposal had thrown the whole court into confusion, wrote again to say that the Danish Minister had given a false interpreta tion to the despatch of her Majesty's Government, which did not require that either the Diet or the Duke of Augustenturg should be made parties to the proposed arrangement for the succession to the Crown of Denmark. The consequence of all that was that the treaty of 1852 has never been recognised by the Diet, and to this day it is con sidered by the Germanic Confederation to be in effect a nullity. This question of Schleswig-Holstein has never been discussed, and is totally misunderstood, both in this house and in the country. The opinion of German states men on this treaty was to be found from the memoir of the Gonnt von Usedom, on the , Ple of February, 1862, in which he said that "in attempting to break the legitimate succes sion in the duchies violently and without free renunciation on the part of those concerned, the dangerous principle of arbitrary power is installed in the place of existing rights. The seeds of future insurrection will be shown in favour of legitimacy. I pray Sour Majesty may, at any risk, keep free from establishing a principle of integrity not in exist ence, but intended to be artificially created." The other day, the son of the celebrated Chevalier, on December 3, 1863, said—" King Frederick William IV. long resisted the urgent pressure of Russia, and influence in the pay of Russia, urging him to sign the treaty of 1862. I well re member toy father's observations on that treaty. The first cannon shot in Europe, he said, will annihilate this most fumbling piece of diplomacy. (Hear, hear.) Have we not seen how this prophecy, made in 1852, has been tarried out, and how this most fumbling piece of diplomacy has been rent asunder by the first cannon shot in Denmark, I maintain, and I think I shall be supported by those who form the Liberal party in this country, that the King of Denmark had no right to alter the succession to his own Crown, and no right to call in the Powers of Europe to set aside the legitimate heir of the duchies ; and the noble lord had no right to call this a legal and proper mode of proceeding as he does in this despatch. The engagements of 1851-52 were solely between Austria, Prussia, and Denmark, and it is very material that the house should be in possession of whet those engagement were. Denmark undertook that a common constitution should be provided for the whole mo narchy, that certain local rights should be guaranteed to the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, and that neither of them should be incorporated with Denmark. To this day, those engagements have never been complied with, (Hear.) Denmark has systematically evaded complying with those agreements, However we may sympathise with a small State fighting a gallant battle against great odds, we are at the same time bound to consider the justice of the case, and not to forget that the small State has availed herself of her weakness, and systematically evaded complying with the agreements which she undertook to fulfil. What has been her conduct in the duchies? It has been marked by the most arbitrary and tyrannic pleas. She has suppressed the German language. It is made penal for two or more house holds to club together and entertain a German instructor for their families. Only three people are allowed to sign a petition. In fact, she has in every way acted with the most arbitrary power to the German population of those duchies. (Hear, hear.) This does not rest merely upon German re presentations. To prove this, the hon. gentleman quoted from the despatches and reports of Mr. Ward, Vice-consul Reynaud, and Mr. Grosvenor, to show that the liberty of the press was entirely suppressed in the duchies ; that the officials were exclusively Danes ; that the systematic attempts were made to force the Danish language on the German inhabitants ; and that the espionage of the police and gens d'armes was exceedingly irritating to the German popu lation. The first step of King Christian IX. on coming to the throne, contrary to the express stipulations which he had given twelve years before, was to proclaim the in corporation of Schleswig with the kingdom of Denmark. (Hear, hear.) King Christian 11.'8 title to the throne of Denmark may be a good ono, though the Danish Parlia ment had to be dissolved three times before they could be brought to acknowledge it; but by what possible title is the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein? By no title whatever, for to this day the change has never been submitted to the Estates of the Duchies. The people claim their rightful sovereign, and deny altogether that Christian IX. is Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. I will not go into the case of the rival claimant to them, the Duke of•Augustenburg, who has received somewhat hard measures at the hands of the great Powers. I do not undertake to say that he is tho rightful heir, though many people in Germany think so, and the greater portion of the people in the duchies think he is the heir. It is not necessary to my argument. I only maintain that King Christian IX. is not the rightful Duke of the Estates of Schleswig-Holstein. Whatever may come of the vexed question of the succession, I do not think that an English House of Commons will fix its seal to an endea vour to force an unwelcome prince upon an unwilling people without consulting their Estates. This is not a course which I think a Liberal Government or that greater sham a Liberal party, ought to consider. (Hear.) I regret that the settle ment proposed by Earl Russell on Sept. 24, 1862, was not accepted by Danmark, because I think if it had been this war would have been prevented. The Germans were willing to adopt that settlement of the question, but Denmark,with her usual obstinacy, trading upon her weakness, held out, and would not listen to the settlement of the question. Re ferring then to the despatches written by Earl Russell, the hon. gentleman said—l only regret that he has been so in cessant in writing despatches, because, by our incessant meddling interference somehow or other this country has lost her hold in Europe, and we in fact are looked upon by the minor Powers of Germany as a troublesome meddler, while the greater Powers regard us as an incorrigible bore. (Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding that, it was a little' re markable that her Majesty's Government in another place took very great credit for their pacific I cannot help thinking that this hots* hkii not been treated either with coorttey de 'Candour in regard to this question, because hon. 'gentlemen will remember that in the Queen's speech on the 4th of February the following passage occurred :—" Her Majesty has bees unremitting in her endeavours to bring about a settlement of the questions which hate arisen be tween Germany and Denmark, and to ward off the dangers which might follow the beginning of war in the north of Europe." But on the 18th January, 1864, the noble lord was instructing Lord Cowley to asE;ertain whether France would co-operate with Angland and Russia—(hear, hear) — and, on the 24th January, Lord Cowley explained that material assistance to Denmark meant a league. In fact, it meant war. (Cheers.) Her Majesty's Government actu ally proposed to go to war with Germany, atid were only prevented by the wise and pendent conduct of France. If ever a nation could, like an individual, exclaim, " Save me frail my friends," it is the unfortunate State of Denmark. It is said. that Denmark had no reason to rely upon this country. I deny it altogether. The obstinacy displayed by Denmark proceeded from the hopes held out to her by Ministers in this place. (Hear.) The ministerial papers dealt not merely with the names of the regiments to be sent, but I saw one of them which even gave the name of the com mander. (Hear.) These unfortunate Danes calculated, no doubt, that they would have assistance direct from this coun try. The noble lord, in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) made use of these words—" I am convinced that if any violent at tempt were made to overthrow or interfere with the inde pendence of Denmark, those who made the attempt would find in the result that it would not be Denmark alone with whom they would have to contend." I think;that is pretty strong for the First Minister of the Crown ; but he goes on—" I do not myself anticipate any immediate danger, or, indeed, any remote danger, which the hon. gentleman seems to think imperils the peace of Europe arising out of this Schleswig-Holstein and Danish question." (Hear.) I think I can prove that the Danish Government did take that as a promise. Sir A. Paget, in relating, Oct. 14, 1863, a conversationwhich he had had with the Danish Minister, states that the Minister said, "If the question must be settled by an appeal to arms, it had bettor be now," and ho went on to remark that "Denmark will s o t eten e eleee , e , Why, these are the precise words which had fallen from the noble lord. (Hear.) And again, in reply to a despatch from the Danish Minister, on Feb. 11, 1864, Earl Russell gives an assurance that the active assistance of England will not fail them under the present circumstances. It should not be forgotten that these despatches have been considerably curtailed, and I am surprised that the noble lord opposite (Lord R. Cecil) does not move that the Under Secretary in this house should be dismissed for mutilating them. (Laughter.) The pertinacity with.which the noble lord clings to the treaty of 1852—his latest child, the result of diplomatic dalliance with Russia—(laughtere—is almost ridiculous. Earl Eussell writes to Sir A. Malet, on 26th Dec., 1863, that if anybody has the impertinence to talk of Christian IX. as a protocol prince he is to interrupt the speaker. (Laughter.) Sir A. Malet is placed in a most unfortunate position. and after the first week of interrup tion he writes, "It will scarcely be thought surprising . . in England that her Majesty's Government exercises scarcely any influence in Germany as regards this dispute with Denmark. (Cheers and laughter.) And he goes on to tell her Majesty's Government, " I have to inform you that all the publicists of the University are engaged in demon strating the invalidity of the Landon treaty." (Laughter ) Then, Sir H. Howard, writing to Earl Russell from Han over, says, " I regret to say that I have reason to appre hend that Count Pahlen is preparing to beat a retreat from the Treaty of London of 1852." But there is some thing more than that. France had been a eignitary to that treaty. Now, what did the Emperor call it ? In a letter which is open to all the world, he designated it an impudent convention condemned by events. And there is another opinion, which is very curious. Lord Wodehouse stated in another place that he not only condemned the policy of her Majesty's Government, but doubted altogether the expe diency of such treaties as that of 1852. Treaties like this must give way to inexorable logic and facts. In spite of treaties, the noble lord has seen Cracow absorbed, Poland partitioned, and Nice and Savoy annexed. He has seen the Treaty of Paris broken through, by which this country guaranteed that no descendent of Napoleon should sit upon the throne of France, and he has also declared in this house that the present dynasty was necessary to the peace of Europe. (Cheers.) Do not, then, tell me that the London Treaty of 1852 is more sacred in the eyes of this house than the Treaty of Paris of 1815. But now we have got a Confer ence on the Danish question, and I want to know what is the object of it. If it bo merely to patch up the treaty of 1852, it will be a failure. (Hear, hear.) lem rather sur prised that the Government have withheld the replies of Powers to the - proposals for this Conference, for I think there could be nothing more necessary for the information of this house, and I. hope that the house will insist that those replies shall be laid upon the table. Now, with some surprise and some regret, I see it is the intention of a dis tinguished leader on the other side of the house to move the previous question. I hope he has entirely made up his mind on the Danish question, and I think I am entitled to ask her Majesty's Opposition what is their policy regarding Denmark. (Hear, hear.) For if merely because Lord Malmeebury signed the treaty of 1852, it is their intention to patch up the treaty, and to nrake a league with France to enforce the performance of it, then I say that no Govern ment, from whichever side of the house it is composed, which pursues such a policy can hope to gain the confidence of England. I think the noble lord beneath me (Lord Pal merston) may in the absence of any declaration of polidy on the other side of the house, say, in the words of Charles IL, " No man will get rid of me to put you in my place." (Laughter.) I have endeavoured to speak on this question from the English point of view, and to represent to the house that this country has no interest in maintaining whet is called the balance of power i❑ the north of Europe, and interfering in the affairs of another State. However con tent the taxpayers of this country may be to pay the bur dens imposed upon them of old by foreign statesmen for interference in foreign affairs, I am sure they are not now prepared to bear any additional taxation for the sake of an unjust attempt to meddle with the affairs of Northern Europe. (Cheers.) Mr. PEACOCKE moved as an amendment a resolution approving the avowed policy of her Majest's Government to maintain at the Conference the Treaty of London of 1852. He gave a brief history of the transactions between the German Powers and Denmark, and complained of the tone of some Lord Russell's despatches. The amendment was seconded by Mr. A. EGERTON", who expressed his concurrence in the policy recognised by the Government, and deprecated the adoption of the doctrine of nationalities. Mr. G, DUFF thought the best solution of this difficult question would be obtained by going into Conference, and leaving the population of Schleswig and Holstein to decide who should be their ruler. Lord R. MONTAGU entered upon a long detailed nar rative of the transactions hetween the several Powers, with occasional comments upon the actioa of Earl Russell. Mr. C. BENTINCK accused the policy of the Foreign Secretary of inconsistency, by applying different principles of policy to similar cases. Mr. COCHRANE said he could testify that this country had lest immensely in moral influence in Europe since Earl Russell had been at the head of the Foreign Office, his policy having been contradictory and misleading; and he read extracts of the correspondence in support of this remark. He condemned the proceedings of the German Powers, and expressed strong sympathy towards Denmark. Mr. NEWDEGATE urged the importance, political and commercial, of maintaining the independence of Denmark, to which our Government, he said, should not hesitate to give its aid. Sir H. VERNEY concurred in thinking it important to uphold the independence of Denmark; the conduct of the King of Denmark had, however, not merely justified but obliged the German Powers, as a matter of duty, to obtain for the Duchies their rights, and the fulfilment of her pro mises by Denmark. Mr. LIDDELL likewise desired the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Denmark; but there was more than one mode of securing them. He did not desire that the object should be secured by maintaining the Treaty of 18.52. If it was said that that treaty was part of the law of Europe, that law, which was hastily framed, should be amended. He believed the treaty contained the seeds of weakness to Denmark herself. With reference to the approaching Conference he confessed he had little confi dence in the prospect it offered, Mr. L &YARD confessed that he rose with great reluc tance to take part in the discussion. Upon the very eve of the Conference, it appeared to him extraordinary that this question should be made a matter of debate in that house. (Hear.) Were it not for the fear of prejudging so important a question, he might say a great deal more with respect to it. Matters of such importance should bo discussed with the greatest calmness, and not dealt with in the rollicking the • toric of the hon. member for Liskeard. (Oh, oh.) The hon. member had dealt with the question upon false principles, and in a way utterly unworthy of discussion—(oh, oh)—as he had said once before, " Oh, oh" was not an argument. (Renewed cries of " Oh, oh.) The questioa of succes sion had more to do with the matter than the hon. mem• ber supposed. It was involved in the greatest difficulty, and it had puzzled the most learned heads in Germany. The regulation of that questioa was the very thing wished for by all the Powers in Europe, and the only object the British Government had in view was not the accession of the son of the Duke of Oldenburg, but what they required was that somebody should succeed in case the king died without direct heirs. He explained that the treaty of 1852, or any other treaty, was very distinct from a protocol, and denied that the treaty bound the British Government to anything like a guarantee. Far fsom having nothing to do brat sign that treaty, he had a good deal to do in the nego tiation of it, and was justly proud that he had done some thing for the peace of Europe. Earl Granville also advo cated the communication of that treaty to the Diet, but was opposed by Austria, Russia, and Prussia on the ground that it was giving the Diet a privilege it had no right to enjoy. The hon. gentleman had taken great trouble to ascertain what the attributes of Schleswig-Holstein were. Now, as far as he (Mr Layard) could understand, the States of Schleswig and Holstein had no power whatever; .hey were I merely proVincial States, their poeleers were United, and they had no powers whatever in a treaty of the nature. The treaty, however, did not settle the question if succes sion at all. At that period there was no Parliament in Den mark at all—the Rigsdag (not the Rigsrad) had tae power, and acted as the representatives of the people, To that Rigsdag the law of succession was referred, and Filer some disagreement they agreed to repeal the lex regice. That was the real thing which altered the succession in Denmark, and not the treaty. That step was communicated to the Diet by proclamation, and the question of succession was never raised again nntil the last fene months. With regard to the position of the duchies and Denmark her Majesty's Govern ment had incessantly called upon Denmark to fulfil her promises; but he admitted she had not done so. The en gagementashe had entered into were difficult to fulfil. She had engaged to giie equal representation to Schleswig and Holstein in the Parliament of Denmark; and that would haye given much larger respresentation to the duchies than to Denmark. The house had been reminded of an answer given by the noble lord last year that, under circumstances, Denmark should not be left alone. Well, the weight given to that answer was much greater than it deserved. (Ironi cal cheers and laughter.) That answer was given before the death of the King, and when Germany had no legiti mate ground of complaint against Denmark on the question of succe-sion. Supposing there had been a wanton aggres sion on Denmark without any cause, the British Govern ment might hays interfered ; but the state of things contem plated by the noble lord had never arisen. Her Majesty's Government had been charged with having promised to support Denmark, and then abandoned her. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) They never gave Denmark any promises of support. These papers showed that Lord Russell never pronounced any encouragement whatever; all he promised was sympathy. (" Oh, oh I" and laughter from the Opposition.) They distinctly told them all along they would not give them material support. Reference had teen made to a despatch asking France and Russia whether in the event of any attempt to dismember the Danish mon archy, they would give the British Government material assistance. That result had never arisen; but, in consequence of the representations of the British Government* Austria and Prussia stated they had not in view the dismemberment of the Danish monarchy, but, on the contrary, they in tended to preserve its integrity. (Hear.) Under these Ea._ eunietances, would the British Government have been jus tified in going to war with Germany? As long as they declared they had no intention of dismemberment of the Danish monarchy, we had no right to go. [An hon. gentle man opposite : No, no.] The hon gentleman gives an ironical "No ;" and what does that mean but that we ought to go to war? (Ministerial cheers, and a cry of "No.") Well, then, he asked, what did the hon. gentleman mean ? (Laughter.) Was he to understand that when Austria and Prussia invaded Denmark the British Government ought to go to war. (No.) When he said " go to war" it was re ceived with ironical cheers, and he asked, What did they mean ? (Ministerial cheers.) It was said they had dis honoured and humiliated the country. (Opposition cheers.) These assertions were difficult to deal with in that house, but he confessed he did not see any humiliation in endea vouring, as far as possible, to keep this country out of war. (Counter cheers.) If the hon. gentleman who had given him those ironical cheers would get up and answer his speech, let him do eo. They were not principles in the case--they had not been meddling. (Cries of "Oh, oh," and laughter.) There was a great deal of difference between mediation and intervention, and there had been no inter vention at all. Unfortunately, her Majesty's Government had not been able to prevent the war from becoming generalised into a great European war. He believed that was what the country thought, and that would be also the opinion of the house when the question came to be impar tially considered. (Hear, hear.) On the hon. gentleman resuming his seat, Mr, Disraeli and Mr. Kinglake rose together. There were some calls for the latter gentleman, but he eventually gave way. Mr. DISRAELI said—l wish to express to the house the reasons which induced me to give notice of moving the previous question on the motion of the hon. member for Liskeard. I am anxious, on the part of myself and of many who sit on this side of the house, to take as early an opportunity as I can to give those reasons, because it has been stated that proposing the previous question in this discussion implies a certain degree of confidence in the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government; but, as I am very much indisposed to gain votes under false pre tences, I beg to state that I have no confidence whatever in the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government— (hear, hear, and laughter)—and that it is not from being animated by any sentiment of that character that I have given notice of this contingent amendment. I think the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government, especially during the , past year, has been such as very justly to occasion great anxiety and great apprehension in this country. I think that the course which was pursued in regard to the insurrection in Poland—a matter which is intimately connected with this affair of Denmark—was ono which certainly disentitled it to the confidence of this house. I have before referred to the total want of system which seemed to characterise the management of foreign affairs by the present Administra tion, and I think the climax of mismanagement was reached in the conduct of her Majesty's Government with respect to the Polish insurrection, and its diplomatic communica tion on that subject both with France and with Russia. The noble lord (Palmerston), on both occasions when I ex • pressed that opinion, said that I was dissatisfied with the Government because they had not gone to war with Russia in the interests of Poland. I should have thought that if the Government of England had gone to war with Russia for Poland, although I, as every other man in this house, look upon the partition of Poland as one of the most de plorable events of modern times—(hear)—still I should have lookel upon the - fact of England last year going to war with Russia for the sake of Poland to have been an act of insanity—not less an act of insanity than going to war with Germany, which her Majesty's Ministers appear to have been quite prepared to do only a few months ago. In conducting those negotiations, we held out expectations to France of co-operating with her in regard to the Polish insurrection, which we were not jus tifi3d in doing, because the course which we apparently con templated was opposed to every principle of English policy which any English Minister was authorised at any time to contemplate. Her Majesty's Government took a line with regard to the insurrection in Poland which anticipated the traditionary policy of France; and when France—encou raged by those representations, by speeches in this house, by despatches out of every regular course of diplomatic com munication, and by extraordinary statements made by Earl Russell—was taking a line and preparing to follow a policy 1 which she believed to be perfectly consonant with her in terests, we were under the necessity of suddenly di awing back and leaving France in a position which she has can didly acknowledged was one which impaired her dignity and self-respect in the eyes o: the world. I say we were not j us.. tified in taking such a course. It has been one of the gravest errors of modern times so to have managed our negotiations with Russia with respect to Poland, that we should have i placed a Power like France in so false a position. The n direct consequences of that act in influencing the position of Denmark are grea t an d d e plo ra bl e . This question o f D en • mark and the duchies, originally a small question , consider ing their population and resources, it is impossible to sup- I pose could have reached the present deplorable condition if there had been what there was originally, a thorough understanding and a sincere similarity of opinion on the matter between England, France, and Russia. That un derstanding, as regards France, had been destroyed by your haughtily and even rudely refusing her proposition for a Congress. Almost within 48 hours of that refusal you were obliged, as it were, to appeal to her for assistance in this matter of Denmark and the duchies, which has led t o the serious result of a bloody and destructive war, which has shaken the peace of Europe, and may not even now be settled with out a general outbreak of hostilities. That being the state of affairs, it may possibly be said t o gentlemen on this side, If these are your views, why have you n ot brou g ht this state of the management of our foreign relations before the consideration of the House for their adjudic ation ? I think i myself, the answer to that is perfectly satisfactory. The state of affairs I have sketched existed b efore Parliament met. It was after Parliament was prorogued last year that the crowning absurdities of our negotiations with Russia were accomplished. It was during the recess that the estrangement with France, oniaccount of our refusal to as sent to the Congress, occurred; and it was before Parlia ment met that the state of affairs with regard to Denmark had assumed their most critical character. When Parlia ment met, we were w itho u t th e documents which are usually placed immediately on the table of the house, and which are thh only foundation upon which you can with success move in a matter of this kind in the Houseof Commons. It is very well for the hon. member o pposite (Mr. B. Osborne) poly ? and if you tc toset up without any responsibility, m ake a motion, and salt' to me, or to other gentlemen on th is bench, " Wh y did you not come f or ward and declare you r disapprove of the foreign policy of her Majesty's Govern ment, why did you not ask the o pinion of the house upon it„'' At no ti m e should a vote amounting to a vote of want of confid e nce be lightly broug ht forward ; but I maintain that in the present state of Euro p e, and in th e present position of nearly balanced parties,. to bring forward a question impugning the foreign policy of the Government, without at the same time having every reasonable chance and condition of success, would be an act of the greatest imp-udenea and of the most unjus tifiable character. In bringing forward such a question, the two conditions which I hold to be absolutel y necessa ry of Commons has a i to any chances of success were, first, that we should have all those documents which the H ouse right to expect from the Government n explanation and vindication of their policy; and, secondly, that we should be in possession of sufficientinformation, and that the Mini ster should not be able tc answer u 3 by saying, " Negotia tions are ge ing on; you are interfering in those negotiations, and you must take the responsibility of such a course." Now, bow have we been placed in regard to these two con ditions ? In regard to the possession of papers, it was nearly four weeks after Parliament met that we had what may be called the first batch of papers. It was not till after Easter that we got the remainder, and then we were told that the prospects of a conference amounted almost to a certainty. Under these circumstances, I say that gentlemen on this side were not justified in bringing forward a formal vote of censure on the foreign policy of the Government. (Hear.) The Conference is to meet to-morrow, End I shall not be surprised to hear that an armistice is the first thing to be an notinced. It is a necessary consequence of events which I consider disgraceful and deplorable—(cheers)—but which still are events of great magnitude. We aro on the eve of this Conference. It is to meet, in this city, in this parish, within the sound of the bell which we hear at the present moment—(a laugh)—and this is the moment when we are asked to give an opinion on the present state of affairs. The motions before the house are suggestions of ,bases for the Conference. Now, I beg leave to say that, though I should be the last man to diminish the attributes and functions of the House of Commons, I do not think the House of Com mons is exactly the place where the basis of a Conference ought to be devised. (Hear.) Then what course ought we to take? My opinions on public affairs have been intimated pretty freely since Parliament met, although I have not felt justified in asking the house to pass a formal censure on the Government. But I reserve to myself the right. (Op position cheers.) The session is not yet at an end, and why should we hurry to a decision. Before Easter we were taunted because we did not ask the opinion of the house on the foreign policy of the Government. It is the fashion now to taunt the Opposition because they have not a policy; but it should be remembered that we are the con stitutionat critics of public affairs. The originators of measures—the individuals who come forward with schemes and sugges tions for public approbation—are not the Opposition, but the Ministers of the Crown ; and we sit hero to criticise the suggestions which they bring forward. (Hear.) With re• gard to the management of Danish affairs, my opinion is the same which I have expressed. It appears to me that it is entirely owing to the conduct of their negotiations with regard to Poland that we have come to this deplorable con dition which we have now occupied for many months. As to the argument of the Under-Secretary, "Are you for war, or are you not ? there is the issue," I deny the whole affair. (Cheers.) Things have been so managed by the Government that they are brought into a position which, if they had managed affairs with earnestness, and at the same time with conciliation, they would never have occupied. And this position of the Government is one which may some day or other drift us into a war. And now I have given to the house the reasons why it has not been in our power to raise the question of confidence in the Go vernment of the country with those fair conditions of success which a man who counsels such a course in Par liament would be mad if he did not command. (Op position cheer..) It would have been an aut of absolute in sanity for us to have brought forward such a motion if the Government could say, " You have not got the requi site information, and you are bringing forward the ques tion when we are about to carry on negotiations for its settlement." Now that this conference is about to assemble, and, as I hope and believe, with a speedy if not an imme diate announcement of an armistice, I cannot undertake the responsibility of challenging the Government and throwing additional obstacles in the way of the difficult task they have to accomplish. (Cheers.) But at the earns time Ido not want our situation to be misunderstood. We reserve our right, as we have done from the first, to ask the house to give their opinion on the course taken by her Majesty's Government with respect to the management of their foreign affairs. (Opposition cheers.) It is, I think, one of the first duties of tuose who are the leaders of parties to take care not always to fight their battles on ground selected by their opponents. (Cheers.) We consider that we are the best judges of the question; but do not let the house suppose that, in making this motion of the previous question, any degree of confidence is implied on our part in the conduct of foreign affairs—(laughter)—and do not let the noble lord and his colleagues for one moment suppose that we shall not take the first fitting opportunity to ask tae house to give its judgment on that policy, (Loud cheers,) Lord PALMERSTON—I should have hoped that the right hon. gentleman had been sufficiently aware of the feeling that we have with regard to his judgment, and the judgment of those who follow him, in respect to our con duct. We never could have fallen into the delusion of supposing that he reposed confidence in us. (Hear, hear.) We do not expect it ; it is not in the nature of things that we should ; and I can assure him that the dis claimer on his part was by no moans necessary. (Laughter.) But it it had been in doubt, that which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman would have been well calculated to dispel it, and to give us a right view of the matter. I did not, however, expect that, in a debate on Danish affairs, we should have been called upon to discuss the question of Poland or the question of the Congress. But the right hon. gentleman, in blaming our conduct through out the whole of the transactions to which he has referred, has omitted, so far as I can follow him, to explain what it was we ought to have done. He has blamed us for what we did, but he has omitted to state in what aspect our con duct might have been altered for the batter. The right lion, gentleman has blamed the conduct which we pursued in re gard to the affairs of Poland, but he has said that it would have been insanity in the English Government to have gone to war with Russia on behalf of Poland. Well, then, what other course would he have had us to pursue ? Aro we to infer that,whle on the one hand he considered war to be in sanity, on the other hand he thought silence could have been proper? It was impossible that the English Government could have been silent on the affairs of Poland, for scarcely a fortnight passed last year without an expression on the part of members of this house, and more especially of mem bers on the other side of the house—(Ministerial cheers) — urging the Government to take steps to remonstrate with the Russian Government upon what was believed to be a violation of the engagements of the Treaty of Vienna with regard to Poland. And we were urged not only to express our own opinion, but the opinion of this house and of the country; and we were urged not only to express English opinion, but also to endeavour to collect in a body the opinions of all the Powers of Europe, in order that the collected opinions of Europe might sway the Government of Russia, and induce them to do that which they ought to have done. The steps we took with regard to Poland were steps which were urged upon us by the opinion of this house and the public opinion of the country, and we should have been liable to a vote of censure if we had not done that which the unanimous opinion of the house and of the country called upon us im peratively to do. Therefore, sir, until the right hon. gen tleman tells us what we ought to have done, we are entitled to say that the conduct we have pursued with regard to Poland ekes not deserve the censure which he has passed upon us. War, as he said, would have been unfit ting. Diplomatic interference was repeatedly urged upon us, and we were told that we ought to endeavour to collect the opinions of all the other Powers of Europe. We did so, and we failed in our object, but the failure was not our fault. And when the right hon. gentlemen says that we allured France to a position which led her to humiliation, I utterly deny that statement. (Hear, hear.) There was no humiliation for France. Like Spain, Austria, and Prussia, France joined with us in urging upon the Government of Russia the fulfilment of the obligations of the Treaty of Vienna. Russia admitted the obligations, and said she would perform them when peace and tranquillity were re stored, and we, therefore, gained a point, and there was no humiliation suffered by any of the Powers concerned. That which we did was in harmony with the wishes of this house and of the country; and, so far from France being humi liated, I say that she acted a part on which she may look back with satisfaction, although it was not attended with the desired result. Well, sir, then as to the Congress, We are brought back to a discussion on that subject. I think when the question was discussed in this house, we gave unanswerable reasons why we should not accept the offer which was made to us; and as for our giving a rude answer, I utterly desty that there was anything rude in our answer. We put forward a plain state ment of the reasons why we thought the Congress would lead to no useful result, and why we did not feel ourselves at liberty to accept the offer made to us. So far as regards that se hich has gone by. No, Sir, the right hon. gentleman has at considerable length stated the reasons why he, and those who act with him, have not thought fit, in respect to this Danish affair, to call upon the house to pronounce an opinion as to the policy of her Majesty's Government. I, in all sincerity, think the right hon. gentleman has made out a case to the satisfaction of his own party—(laughter)—for I admit that there has been no moment at which, consistently with parliamentary practice, and with the real interests of his party, he could properly have called upon the house to express an opinion on the transactions which are going on. But that was no fault of ours. (Hear, hear,) We gave him the papers as soon as they were ready to be presented, and we gave him the papers up to the latest moment. But those transactions were going on from week to week and from month to month, and consequently there was no moment at which we could give him up to the very time all papers which had passed up to that moment. We could only give them by instalments, and the right hon. gentleman was right in saying that, having these papers idways iii arrear, he would always have been met by the statement that cir cumstances had changed since the period up to which the papers came, that negotiations were going on, and that any discussion on the subject might be prejudicial. The right hon. gentleman stated two reasons why he could not hope for success in such a motion; and I quite admit the weight and justice of those reasons. Perhaps, however, I may presume to suggest a third reason, which may not have occurred to the right honourable gentleman's mind—that the opinion of the house and of the country in respect of th-se negotiations is such, that he could not hope for success: (Cheers and laughter.) I think the right hon. gentleman is right in the course which he has pursued, or means to pursue this evening. For the reasons stated by my hon. friend in the outset of his speech, it is exceedingly difficult for a member of the Government, on the eve of a Conference consisting of the representative of different Powers duly assembled to discuss a great and important European event, to speak without the greatest reserve upon matters which are to be the subject of discussion and delibe beratiou in that Conference. Therefore I am precluded by the condition in which wo stand from following my hon. friend the member for Liskeard in the long and elaborate discussion which he made at the beginning of the evening on the general question connected with Danish affairs and the treaty of 1852. All I can say is, that I repeat what my hon. friend the Under Secretary has said—that perpetual confusion arises from not defining and bearing in mind the distinction between a protocol and a treaty—a protocol being simply an engagement by plenipotentiaries, which may be disavowed by the Government, and a treaty being a docu ment not only signed by the plenipotentiaries, but ratified by the hands of the sovereign, and therefore binding upon the State whose sovereign has signed the treaty. The treaty of 1852 is a document of that description, and my noble friend at the head of the Foreign Office is perfectly justified in telling his plenipotentiary, when anybody talked of the treaty of 1852 as an instrument which may be violated, that he must remind them that it was a treaty which every sovereign who had ratified it was bound to observe. (Hear, hear.) All the Powers who are parties to that treaty, and whose plenipotentiaries are to meet to-mor row, acknowledge the validity and obligation of the treaty of 1852, and therefore the case which is contem plated by the questions and answers to which allusion has been made, of the intended dismemberment of the Danish monarchy, has not arisen. As far as any share which fell to my lot in the preparation of that treaty, I am proud to have had anything to do with the conclusion of that arrange ment ; but the merit of concluding the treaty rested with the Government of Lord Derby. Lord Malmesbury signed and concluded the treaty itself; and, therefore, if there is merit it must be divided between us, and if there is blame the right hon. gentleman must share it. (A laugh.) I think then the course which the right hon. gentleman proposed to take is the right course for the house on the present ques tion. I think that for this house, on the ev© of the meeting of the Conference of the different Powers who concluded the treaty of 1852, for the purpose of endeavouring to restore peace and establishing an armistice—l think that any strong expression of opinion of this house would tend to impede the successful result of the negotiations which are going to take place. Therefore I concur with the right hon. gentleman, that the course which this house can most usefully take on the present occasion will be to concur with him in his mo tion for the previous question, and I am prepared to be his follower upon this question—(laughter)—and so far to give him that confidence which he refuses to give to me, and fol low him into the lobby on the motion of the previous ques tion. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. KINGLAKE said it was with the greatest reluc tance he found himself obliged to rise to address the house after the two leaders of the house had spoken. He merely rose in consequence of having an amend ment on the paper. The noble lord began by say ing that the near approach of the Conference was a circumstance which forced upon him so great reserve that anything like free discussion was impossible. But the amendment which he (Mr. Kinglake) had given notice of was founded upon the noble lard's want of reserve. It was founded on the fact that the noble lord, a few days ago while knowing that the Conference was impending, came down to that house and stated that the present King of Denmark was to be declared to be in the Conference the lawful Sovereign of the people of the duchies. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the Under-Secretary when he stated that there was no justification for a war with Germany on the part of England in this matter. Now that it was known there was to be no war, this country was open to the taunts of those enemies who said that England was acknowledging by her acts that she was bound in honour to go to war for Denmark, but not do so in reality. He could not bat think that it was a lamentable state of things to establish, and _one that was attended with danger. He thought that it was of great importance for the honour of this country to show that it did not cling to peace for any base motive, but because a war would be alto gether unjustifiable. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, the hon. member deprecated their misinterpreting the principle of nationality—a principle for which in other cases .England had shown such respect, and placing themselves in antagon ism to Europe, not in order to prevent war, but to obstruct peace. (Hear, hear.) No other member rising to address the house, the Speaker was about to put the question, when Colonel W. PATTEN invited the right hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that there were three amendments before the house—(cries of No, no)—and he wanted to know what would be the effect of their votes. For his part he intended to vote for the previous question, and in order that that amendment might eventually come before the house, he believed their proper course was to vote for the motion of the hon, member for Liskeard in the first instance Mr. B. OSBORNE—I believe I shall simplify this question by saying that I am so satisfied with the dis cussion which has taken place—(ironical laughter)—so satis fied with the reserve displayed by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in his new capacity as the representative of decency and delicacy— (much laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh")—so satisfied with the reserve of the noble lord—and, above all, so convinced that this treaty of '52 is a dead letter (loud cries .of hear, hear, and no, no)—which will never patch up the so-called integrity of Denmark. (No, no.) Well, we shall see that ; I am content to be justified by the event. But so satisfied am I upon all these points, that I shall simplify the course of matters by—like the noble lord —becoming a follower of the right hon. gentleman opposite for this occasion. (Laughter.) Mr. PEACOCKE—In that case I do not press my amendment. Mr. B. OSBORNE—I beg to say that I withdraw my motion. (Cries of no, no.) The SPEAKER said that if the hon. member was not permitted to withdraw his motion, that would be the oppor tunity to move the previous question. Mr. DISRAELI then moved the previous question, which was eventually carried ; Mr. Osborue's motion being negatived without a division. COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND), Mr. O'HAGEN moved for leave to introduce a bill amending the constitution and the procedure of the Irish Court of Chancery, which was grounded upon the report of the Irish Law and Equity Commission. After some discussion, Air. P. HENNESSY moved the adjournment of the debate. The house divided. The motion was lost by a msjoiity of 23, the numbers being 28 for the motion and 57 against it. Mr. WHITESIDE then moved the adjournment of the house. Colonel DUNNE seconded the motion. Mr. O'HAGAN, under these circumstances, declined to press the introduction of the bill then. HIGH COUR2 OF BOMBAY. This bill passed through committee. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. This bill was introduced by the CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER, and read a first time. BILLS OF EXCHANGE (IRELAND). Sir C. O'LOGIILNN obtained leave to bring in a bill to remove certain restrictions on the negotiation of promissory notes and bills of exchange under a limited sum, in Ireland, which was read a first time. The house then adjourned. Murder of a Female. Two young men, named Richard Miles and James Batchelor, were examined at the county magistrates' office, at Sevenoaks, on Monday, on a charge of having murdered a woman, named Bridget Goodall, on the night of the 9th inst., near Westerham. The facts showed that a very atrocious crime had been committed. The deceased woman, who was generally known in the neighbourhood as " Irish Nell," was in the General Wolfe publichouse, at Westerham, on the night of the 9th inst., drinking, until about 10 o'clock, when she left. The prisoners were also in the house, and they departed about the same time. On the following morning, between five and six o'cicck, the body of the deceased was found in a road called Water-lane. She was lying on her back, quite dead, and her appearance altogether indicated that she had been subjected to the most shocking treatment. Her face was pressed sideways close against the ground, and her bon net was bent up and had a quantity of blood on it. In one of her hands was some hair. The body was examined by Mr. Rathill, surgeon, who stated that death resulted from congestion of the brain, caused either by a blow or stran gulation. He added that his impression was that one person held her down whilst some one else abused her. It was then ascertained that the unfortunate creature was seen with two men about 1 o'clock on the night in question near Water lane, and a little later screams and groans of a female were heard, and the footsteps of a man running down the lane were heard. In consequence of information conveyed to the police, Superintendent Coleman, of the Sevonoaks division, went to the house of the prisoner Batchelor, and he admit ted having been in her company on the previous Saturday evening.• Batchelor then accompanied the officer to the lodging of Miles, the other prisoner, and he also admitted having been with Batchelor, and that they were with her down the London-road. The superintendent then took them into custody, and on the waistcoat of Batchelor and his "slop" were found some smears of blood. He stated that he had scratched his face. On the ball of the left hand of Miles was found some blood, which was dry, Mr. Richards having add eased the Bench on behalf of the prisoner, they were fully committed for trial at the next assizes. Persons who have been in the habit of paying weekly as borrowers of Sewing Machines will do well to apply at once and become members of Messrs. Watts and Co.'s Sewing Machine Clubs. By so doing they will not only save the money they now foolishly throw away, but at the same time secure to themselves the possession of one of the best and most celebrated sewing machines in the world. Every in formation given on application; or by letter addressed, with a stamped envelope, to Messrs. Watts and Co., 12, Beaufort buildings, Strand, Loudon, W.C., where mem rs are en rolled daily between 10 and 4; Saturdays, 10 and: [ADVERTISEMENT.]—COIIitunptIOII, all nervous, bilious, liver, and stomach complaints, in every stage, are only ag gravated and accelerated by drugs of every description, but perfectly curable by Du Barry's health restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, as proved by thousands of cases which had been considered hopeless. We quote a few.—Cure No. 62,914. Miss Lange, 18 years of age, cured after the medical men had abandoned all hopes of her recovery from the last stage of pulmonary consumption, with fearful cough, expectoration, exhaustion, spitting of blood, perspirations, hollow cheeks, emaciated to a skeleton. She is now, thank God, a perfectly healthy, blooming, fleshy girl,—N. Lange, Commissaire de Police. Cure, No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, of Friar ley Surrey, of thirty years' diseased lungs, spitting, of blood, liver derangement, and partial deafness.—Cure, No. 47,121. Miss Elizabeth Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, indigestion, gatherings, low spirits, and nervous fancies.—Cure, No. 54,816. Ihe Rev. James T. Cam' bell, Fakenham, Norfolk, of indigestion and torpidity of the liver, which had resisted all medical reatment. In tins, 1113, 2s 9d ; 21b, 4s 6d ; 51b, 115; 121 b, 225; 241 b, 40s. Barry du Barry and Ca., No. 77, tiegent-street, London ; also Fortnum and Mason; and all grocers and chemists in every town of the United Kingdom. Gold Speculators in New V The Washington correspondent of tho Ci ncinnati Gazette gives the following c eeount of the New York gold market :—" Whether in gold or stocks' e verything in Wall-street depends upon h av ing the earliest news, and consequently thoro is not a lead ing stock-dealing firm in New York: that does not have from one to a half - dczen core, espondents in Washington, charged to spare no pith ts or expen is se in furnishing them, by telegraph, and generally cipher, the earliest intelligence of any succes s o disaster in the field, any important action of the Treasury Department, any rumour of foreign com plications—in short, anything likely to a ffect the hopes or fears of the community, which find their barometer in the wavering of the gold market. These correspondents are gene?ally men supposed to have the confidence of the officie Is, or access to early despatches; and, for obvious reasons, their ent e rer* ment is kept as Eeeret as possible. Last summer one New York banking house, in a boastful moment, claimed that it could always have news within aa hoar after the President had it ; and another was said to have numbered among its correspondents the, chief of staff of a great army in the field. Of course the services of such men are not enlisted without a consideration' proportionate at once to the risks they run in furnishing the desired new s : and to the nature and accuracy of the news In general this consideration depends on what ls . made out of their information. Occasionally one et these correspondents make a lucky strike mach more often he furnishes news for weeks and months without its having such an effect on the market as to bring him more than the merest driblets of profit. Bat the chance of 'something brilliant' has. its fascinations, and the stock operators have no (16' culty in inducing well-informed people to furnish them all the news they get. A bureau ce'' the Go' vernment resolves to recommend a tax on Patt i• cular article—before the recommendation reaches Congress, certain parties in New York have it, and have bought up all the article they can get; en d when the rise comes they pocket the proceeds. It seems utterly impossible to prevent this. Whe n ' news of important battles is coming in, Government has sometime attempted it, but the effort was as tale as it was foolish. A censor has been established at the telegraph office, and he has wisely suppreesed every despatch saying a word about the war. Bu t a servant girl comes in with a hurried scrawl on a torn sheet of delicately-scented French paper in a lady's hand—' George H. Montgomery, Fif th Avenue Hotel, New York, Do come home at once. Mary cannot live 21 hours longer—Laura Montgo' mery.' How can he stop that ? But George ll' Montgomery' is a myth, and Mary's illness means Hooker's defeat, and the hotel clerk has been in structed to send any such despatch by the speediest means to somebody's bank down town ; and th e firm makes the money, and the Government censor keeps blinking like an owl over the despatches, and, rigidly stopping everything relating to the war; and Mr. Staunton felicitates himself over having made those newspaper pests send their accounts by mail rather than by telegraph ! ' How little sense it takes to run a Government,'said some wise man! Outs du ring the summer a leading newspaper editor got disgusted, and determined that the gold gambled should not monopolise all the early news. So b e went into the cipher business too, but being rather raw at it his first effort was not quite so good as some subsequent ones. He forwarded the eipn o to his leading Washington correspondent. Pretty soon the operators in his city who knew bin; solely as a devoted newspaper man, were astonished at receiving for him this dispatch from Washing' ton :—'Have sold for you 15,000 bushels of corn at 35. The market looks squally.' The paper ga; flounced the next morning that the main body 0 . Lee's army had crossed the Maryland line, and was moving into Pennsylvania ; and his chief rival got very mad and complained to the War Department, that he was bribing the telegraph company; but ib was whispered about among his friends that 0 0 ' and-so was neglecting his business and going into very rash speculations, and—he caangeel cipher." COUNTRY MARKETS. --eg - LEEDS-TUESDAY. There was a fair attendance of millers to•day. and the show of grain was not large. We quote the prices of wheat Is per qr lower, and at this decline the business passing 01 very small. Oats and beans made late rates, Barley wai firm. MARKET HARBOROUGII—TuEspIy. White wheat, 40s to 445; red, 37s to 42s per 36 stone. Malting barley at 32s to 36s per qr.; grinding, 27s to 20s per 30 st. Oats, old, 26s to 235; new, 21s to 23s per 30 , st. ; beans, 3os to 42s per qr. LIVERPOOL-TUESDAY. • There was a fair attendance both of town and country dealers at market to-day ; however, the day being brilliant and tine, little disposition to buy was evinced. 'Wheat, with a slow sale, may be quoted Id to 2d per 1001 b lower on the week. Flour neglected, and where sales were made rather lower rates had to be submitted to. Oats and oat meal rather improved, but there was no alteration iri the prices of last Friday. Barley, beans, and unaltered in value or demand. Indian corn in modera te demand, and a sale of prime mixed American was reported at 28s Gd per 4801 b. peas wcre SHEFFIELD-TUESDAY. Our market to-day was fairly attended to-day, and the show of wheat and other grain was about an average. , Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...lss OA to 165 0 o! White 1 , ...17s Od to 1 33 Oa New red 9 New white „ 39 ,_ ....1 1 5 7 5 a () O d d t t o o 1186: 001 Beans 99 99 ...15s 6d to 17s 01 Peas, per qr 4os Od to 448 Od Grinding barley, per qr Malting ditto, „ ..32s Od to 355 ila_ , Oats l9s Od to 245U0 Flouii is 4d to is 8d per 14 lb. MELTON MOWBRAY-TUESDAY. The following were the currencies :—New white wheat! 43s Od to 46s Od; new red, 36s Od to 42s per 36 stone► beans, 40s to 42s for old ; new sorts, 34s to 37s per 38 st. barley, 34s to 37s for malting, and 28s to 30s per qr. fir grinding; now oats, 19s to 23s Od per 24 stone; old, 2 0 to 28s. Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS„;DUE.I - . A.ustralia and Mauritius, via Southampton. May 1 9 . via Marseilles ... .. May 1 3 . Airazil and Cape Verde, by British packet. May 4 -, Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena.. April 2u. China, Penang, and Singapore, via S. outhampton.May 2. via Marseilles ...April 2 6 . Falkland Islands ..- Gibraltar, via Southampt on India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, v i a Southampton.. A M p a r y i . l 2. 26. via Marseilles.... April 26. India (Bombay), via Southampton .. April 26. via Marseilles April 21. Portugal ... • Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton April 26. via Marseilles .. . April 21. Newfoundland Oporto and Vigo .. U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet.... April 21. by U.S. packo• by Canadian packet April 22. W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Tenerille April ---. Bahamas, via New York May 6. Mexico. All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, 1 A pr il 28. California. and British Columbia.. Births. CIIRETON.—On the 17th inst., at Raglan-road, Dublin, the wife of Lieutenant-Colonel Edward Cureton, of daughter. CONSTABLE.—On the 18th inst., at 60, Sussex-squared Brighton, the wife of Marmaduke Constable, Esq., of & son. GLYN.—On the 19th inst., at 5, Eaton-place, west, Mrs. _ Pascoe Glyn, of a eon. LAVRENCE.—On the 16th inst., at Southgate Houses Southgate, the wife of the night lion. Sir J. Lawrence, of a daughter. Marriages. GREEN—BANNISTER.—On the 16th inst., at St. James e, Westbourne• terrace, Ilenry Green, , of Upper Lan!' downe-terrace, li ensington-park, to Eliza Augusta, the Eq.) youngest daughter of the late James Banister, E.) °f St. James's-place. OVERWRY—SEWARD.—On the 16th inst., at Trinity' Church, Bath John Overbury, Esq., of akley- London, to Elizabeth Jane, widow of Charles T. Sew Esq., of Bath. Fquare,ard) Deaths. BURGE 3.—On the 16th inst., at Bruton House, Clifton, Bristol, Daniel Burg , s, Ebq., aged 89. BLAKE.—On the 16th inst., at Holway, near Taunton Downing Blake, Esq., aged 89. DUCAT.—On the 18th inst., at Hastings, Charles Ducar, E-q., M.D. EDGAR. —On the 15th inst., at. Thornhill-square, N., John George Edgar, E,q., aged 37, MAUGIIAN.—On the 18th inst., at The Abbey, Grea t Grimsby, John Thomas Maughan, Esq., aged 7 9 . , MONTEITH.—On the 18th iast., at 11, Upper Wiropme• street, Lieut,-General William Monteith, K.L.S., So.) aged 74. PARKER.—On the 18th inst., at South Hackney, the Rev. George H. Parker, incumbent of St. Andrew's, Bethnal green. London: Prihzed and PrbUshed by WILLIAM ANDREWS. of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE Surf Office No. 112, Strand, la the Precinct of the lavoy, n the COttoly of Ml laleaex.—Wednesday, Acril 20, 1861. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY .EVENING, APRIL 20, 1864.